Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The Act of Settlement and constitutional terrorism

Today, an amendment to the Act of Settlement is being rushed through the House of Commons by means usually reserved for emergency terrorism legislation. The imminent royal baby appears to represent a threat to the Coalition's equality agenda every bit as serious as that posed by al-Qaeda to the safety and security of the free world. There will be minimal debate and negligible scrutiny; a Commons guillotine and wave at a committee.

It is, in fact, a constitutional stitch-up between Cameron and Clegg; No10 and Buckingham Palace; the Government and the Crown, with the connivance of the Heads of Commonwealth.

His Grace has written on this matter so many times that it feel like Groundhog Day (eg here, here and here).

It is not simply a matter of ending male primogeniture or permitting the Monarch to marry a Roman Catholic: the constitutional ripples will be felt for decades to come. Indeed, today's apparently trivial 'modernising' amendments could lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England, the end of the Union, and even the demise of the Monarchy itself.

What Cameron and Clegg fail to realise (if, indeed they understand anything of the Constitution at all), is that those who campaign to end the ban on a Roman Catholic monarchy by focusing on the Act of Settlement are on a wild goose chase. That Act was passed by the old English parliament, which ceased to exist in 1707. The Act was also arguably incompetent, since the English parliament could not unilaterally decide on the British Regal Union of 1603-1707. The Scottish parliament recognised this fact, and deliberately countered the Act of Settlement with a Scottish settlement Act - the Act of Security of 1704.

The Act of Settlement 1701 was superseded by the Treaty of Union 1707, which, in Article 2, also prohibits Roman Catholics 'and persons marrying Papists' from ascending the Throne of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union 1707 is the founding charter of the United Kingdom. Tamper with this, and the Union itself is imperilled.

It has been observed that Scottish unionist politicians do not want this truth out. They fear making Scots aware that the United Kingdom is the creature of a treaty between two equal parliaments: a living, legal document, capable of amendment and adjustment to contemporary needs.

These are the unspoken ‘constitutional ripples’ so feared by Donald Dewar. This is why successive prime ministers of the United Kingdom and unionist Scottish secretaries of state had no intention of ending the ban on the Monarch either being a Roman Catholic or married to one, and why they were quite happy to let historically-ignorant and politically-ill-informed people continue harping on about the Act of Settlement 1701.

Until Cameron and Clegg came to power..

"Why," muses Alex Salmond, "should we bother amending the Act of Union this year when the whole thing might be abolished in the next? Indeed, while we're looking at this trivial equality amendment, let's remind ourselves that the Scottish Parliament is not subject to Westminster: it is equal.."

They fear making Scots aware that the United Kingdom is the creature of a treaty between two equal parliaments

Here's a bulletin for you Cranmer: the Scots are way ahead of you on this one. Why do you think they get narked when they hear the English media lying about Scotland "leaving the UK", or Scotland having to apply for EU membership once it's "outside the UK"? There is no UK once Scotland leaves. Scotland did not become part of England in 1707. See how this works?

" ...anyway, if we are talking about equality in the 'visible' church then why have a Pope in the first place.A fellow nominated in secret by people not voted for by the common church goer, who is carried around on a chair, a ring and feet kissed (this has GOT to be against commonsense hygiene and safety and those poor fellows carrying it could hurt themselves. *ecclesiastical injury lawyers4U*) unlike St Paul and Peter who refused such worship!

The whole monarchy/CofE thing is rubbish. Wait till you get "Defender of Faiths" Charlie on the Throne. He'd rather be hugging a tree or lifting his arse to Allah than head up the CofE.

The point I make (which you obviously cannot discern) is that banging on about equality WITHIN a demonstrably elitist and, by definition, unequal institution is just irrational.

Increasingly the case for disestablishment is growing, whether by design or incompetence who knows.

But regardless of that it is quite obvious that the CofE no longer deserves to be the Established church as it has squandered its inheritance and now actively seeks to undermine the society and culture it was created to underpin.

Goodness, what a mess! The Succession to the Crown Bill Clause 5 puts the whole thing into abyeance until the Lord President (Clegg) implements it - he has to wait until legislation is passed in all Commonwealth realms...which means despite the BBC codswallop, if the eldest child is a girl and she is followed by a baby brother, the boy becomes the legal heir presumptive under present laws, only to be booted down the line when Cleggy promulgates the Bill. As for the amendment re a homosexual king or queen...FFS!!!

This motion is just one more reason why the British, equipped with piano wire, would be justified in rising up to cleanse the Halls of Westminster. The post-modern issue, especially with its RC component, is merely another part of the marxist agenda: the poisoned net in which the euSSR already have us trapped. By this operation, the lib/lab/cons will implant a pacemaker in the very heart of our system.

This past year, they have confirmed how willingly we respond to our monarchical figurehead. So her pretend ministers are taking advantage of that dynamic-- and they're pumping more poison into our diseased culture and society.

Given that we are already subjected to the enemy, once our monarch is again under the control of Rome --- Britain will have no semblance of independence left. The young, who have already swallowed the inimical re-inscription of our history, have no idea what freedom is, why we needed it, or how we benefitted from it. So they'll go along with the 'filosofies' and categories that they think so sophisticated.

And then ... 'ere long and sad to say... we'll have Ol'Rumpy officially enthroned, in cahoots with a harem of islamic ministers.

And then, and then: the British? Will there be any left? Or have too many of us presently adopted the attitudes of old Omar? Courtesy of the Victorian Fitzgerald, a sample follows:

___________________

PS. For the record, I seldom imbibe - perhaps a glass at Christmas ---

We have had purportedly homosexual (in the Carl-definition at least) monarchs before, and - dare I say it? - it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there are a few in the present line of succession.

Given that the monarchy has survived a great number of strange incumbents, I doubt another one would make much difference, except to ensure that the Guardianistas became ardent royalists.

My Omar/Fitzgerald quotation supports the suggestion that many Britons might be twisting, and copping out of, traditional Christian and political thinking. The marxist arguments we're expected to involve ourselves with are just a waste of time. So, instead, there's a tendency to lives of irresponsibility, a reliance on pleasure and 'substances.'

Today's speech might make a difference, but everyone knows these power-mongers are just playing a game. In their shadow-box, to boot. We don't matter to them.....

Of course they want to keep us arguing about it, Owl. And while we're thus distracted --- they want to strengthen euro control over us. Subjecting the monarch to papal infallibility/superiority does that ... Avoiding that 'authority' is one of the main reasons we got out from under in the first place.

One reason why I love the Rubaiyat - which is probably the most re-read piece of literature in my life - is sentimental, I suppose. It was among the favourite works of my grandfather, my mother and my father, and I spent a lot of time before my mother's humanist funeral choosing some of what I thought the more apposite verses to read aloud at it.

Apart from thinking the work wonderfully poetic in all it's editions, I also see it as an intuition pump when contemplating the human condition in a godless universe, though very much of it's day.

Rather than "a tendency to lives of irresponsibility, a reliance on pleasure and 'substances.'" I see, over the process of developing the various editions, more of a tendency to thoughtfully contemplate the human condition.

I also think the recent hype over the KJV completely overblown, both as any sort of moral guidance (it contains much evil, little good, and most of the latter impractical and out of touch with human nature) and in terms of having any literary merit except for a few snippets from a small minority of books.

David B: Then our experience of Omar, and our reaction to him, is not dissimilar. When I was 9/10, My father (who could recite the whole thing) had me teach myself to type while copying/learning the "Rubaiyat." Mission accomplished.

However, I don't know what you mean by "poetic" -- my approach to any literature is highly structured and analytical. The KJV stands up to that as a great monument in our language, if not the greatest. You simply refuse to allow the possibilities, or even some of the facts; but if you want to consider the structure and application of rhetoric, the Psalms are a good place to start. However, I would not compare any Biblical translation, as a whole, to Omar.

Obviously I don't dislike the latter -- it raises many questions and elicits multiple interpretations. For example, as I already hinted, the Potter/wine/clay/dust imagery seems to work at one level - sybolically; perhaps it even has an allegorical level. I haven't studied the scholarship as a whole, so I hesitate to develop a thesis about it just now. Nevertheless, at the literal level, it presents the speaker as an alcoholic, even a hedonist. That is what I referred to here ... I used it to mirror some of our reality today.

Surely, with its "two and seventy jarring sects," Omar is relevant to atheism in that sense.

As to being 'unfair to atheists' --Well. They used to say 'you can't please all of the people all of the time.' It's a waste of time to try...

Mr. Owl:My sympathy on the typos. Beyond that, I'm sure you know many things I don't, and vice versa.

I'm surprised, though, that you consider Britain still to be a sovereign nation. In view of that nasty bit of parchment they've buried somewhere in Rome, I mean: the Treaty of Lisbon (and its predecessor, the Treaty of Rome). The politicians gave us away, don't you know. We do as we're told, and we have nothing whatsoever to say about it.

As to papist authority ... well, the papas were ever authoritarian. Don't forget that Billy Conk. came here under with the full encouragement of Alexander II, who wasn't too fond of Harold. We always were a bit hard to handle, being at the edge of the known world, and so on. So, the Bastard came to sort us out, and he even fought under the banner of St. Peter.

That's not to say that subsequent monarchs didn't have their hassles with the papas... my point is that they were/are political entities. And they decide whom RC kings can marry and divorce, etc...

As to sowing dissension; that is the nature of the Marxist-deconstructist agenda. The -isms, be they of gender, race, or history, work to that effect. As with all things marxist however, there's nothing original about it. The Anglo-Normans, for example, were masters at dividing indigenous Britons against each other; or against the putative 'English.' Gerald of Wales is among those who describes how that worked.

So I'm saying that the euros haven't stopped yet. It's just that now, having infiltrated all our institutions with marxism/communism, and with so many of us not caring, they seem almost to have won.

I cannot say that I like the way that this whole issue has been rushed through- I think practically every piece of legislation that has been rushed in this way has turned out to be a dog's breakfast.

This issue is quite an important one as it gets to the crux of what we do or do not want our country to be and who should represent it, so if we are going to have this debate it should be a full, honest and sincere one. Not something concocted in smoke free rooms by Cameron and Clegg.

The problem with 'equality' and the Monarchy, is perhaps that the very fact of a hereditary Monarchy is actually not equal and it is an elitist thing. Ergo, it is impossible to legislate for equality with such an institution.

The ban on the Monarch being a Catholic makes sense if you want an established Church. I guess if you lift that ban and a Monarch wants to be a Catholic you can't have an established Anglican religion.

Perhaps for equalities sake, Lynn Featherstone should be made Ambassador to the Vatican, where she can agitate for the next Pope to be a Protestant lesbian in a civil partnership. Afterall, why should not being a Catholic be a bar to being Pope?

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)